Do you have any
examples of good practice in citizen engagement in well-being and progress
statistics?

A decade on from its first publication of Measures
of Australia’s Progress (MAP) and in response to the burgeoning
domestic and international interest in measuring progress and wellbeing, the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) considered it was timely to review
whether MAP was still measuring those aspects of life that matter most to
Australians. In 2011-2012, we undertook a broad-ranging consultation that asked
Australians ‘What is important to you for national progress?’ The feedback the
ABS received was in the form of aspirational statements.

The
ABS’s method for bringing the consultation feedback together has been
iterative. That is, following each phase of the consultation process, the ABS
has undertaken a careful and methodical thematic analysis of the feedback
received; drawing out and grouping common themes, articulating the important
elements of those ideas and refining the aspirations and views expressed by
participants. The outcome has been a set of aspirations for national progress
that has evolved throughout the consultation process that the ABS hopes
resonate with Australians.

In
consultation with our Expert Reference Group, we decided upon a multi-faceted
consultation model with people drawn from the areas of society shown below. The
government, community, business and academic sectors were all represented, as
were particular groups through representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples. A balance of representation across the various sectors
was sought as was a gender and age balance. The following diagram shows the MAP
consultation groups and channels.

We consulted directly with around 1000 people and indirectly with many more
through social media, utilizing participant networks. We also gathered
information through one point of contact who then gathered input from a range
of constituents. We used a multi-stream consultation, targeting a variety of
audiences. This provided us with a wide representation of views within a
limited budget.

The
consultation was launched through a national statistical conference by the
Australian Statistician where Australians were invited to participate through
submissions, workshops and a variety of social media tools. This launch was
accompanied by a feature article and media releases.

The
whole of the consultation process, including the results, has been reported
back to Australians in Measures of Australia’s Progress – Aspirations for
our nation: a conversation with Australians about progress 2013 ABS cat.no
1370.0.00.002.

Another
key contributor to the success of the MAP consultation was having a clear
consultation model. This tool allowed us to visually represent key concepts to
participants , such as Progress as an unambiguous movement of society in a
positive direction toward an identified aspiration or goal. We also used it to
clarify the stages of the consultation that the ABS and participants would
contribute to (i.e. Participants provided the aspirations for progress whilst
ABS will provide the measures). We used this model to convey and explain the
purpose of the consultation - to establish what was important for progress -
and that looking at available measures was a subsequent activity. In this way
we ensured that the feedback would provide all of the important areas of progress,
without reference to whether or not they are currently measurable.

Lessons learned from the MAP consultation were that it's important to engage
and include the media in any campaign, both traditional and social. As ABS was
launching into the 'new' social media space we learned to be guided by our
staff who had skills in this area and listened to their advice about using more
informal language and tone and allowing for humour. With such a quick response
tool as social media we needed to be prepared and had 3 months worth of
conversations starters, prominent Australian contributions, articles of
interest etc. With this, we also found that we needed to be flexible enough to
respond to conversation threads, rather than ploughing on with our pre-arranged
blog schedule. The MAP 2.0 blog needed a dedicated staff member to ensure that
the ABS and participants received the benefits that we wanted.

Championship of the consultation within the media, from our prominent
Australians and by our ABS leaders also ensured that interest in the project
was high and obstacles were removed early. Rather than talking to our
traditional data users, we chose to engage in a much broader based
consultation. This approach delivered us the broad ranging views that we needed
in order to refresh MAP and gather new ideas about progress.

What role can technology play in improving citizen engagement
with well-being and progress statistics?

We used multiple modes to contact our audiences, for example social media
(which captured a younger cohort), online, paper, face to face, interactive,
media. Many of these processes were able to be undertaken simultaneously which
helped make the process efficient, in terms of time and cost.

The
MAP consultation aimed to promote a conversation about progress. Even though
blogs are one of the oldest social media tools, they have many advantages as an
engagement tool, and the MAP 2.0 blog proved a successful way of inspiring
interest in the topic of national progress, and enabling us to quickly gain
insights into people's views on progress. The blog allowed a range of responses
from short replies to more lengthy and complex replies. One aspect of promoting
interest in the blog and the consultation was to post contributions from
prominent Australians, from entrepreneurs through to sports people. Media
outlets picked up on these contributions and a series of interviews and radio
talk back sessions followed, further promoting and broadening 'the
conversation' about progress. ABS Facebook and twitter were used to channel
people to the MAP 2.0 blog. We felt our social media campaign was successful
with many 1000's of website hits and page visits and hundreds of quality
comments that we could use.

We
developed a list of MAP Community contacts during the consultation and used
these to tap into further online networks. We linked to relevant progress and
wellbeing sites, particularly by developing innovative infographics that
captured interest and imagination, for example our Progress MAP below.

Click map to enlarge.

We
developed and produced an promotional video, using contributions from our
prominent Australians, to capture the aspirational spirit of the consultation.
This was shown at forums and online.

David Skutenko

Director, Social and Progress
Reporting, ABS

Wikiprogress and partners invite you to participate in an online discussion from 22 – 30 April

We all want to be happy – we care about how well our lives are going for us. For this reason, the evaluation of our wellbeing has the power to engage and enthuse us. The measurement of wellbeing need not merely be the collection of data, but can inspire people to focus on what really matters to them.

Happy City is a social enterprise that aims for happiness to be taken seriously by individuals, communities and local policy makers. We design and deliver a range of training, projects and communications to help make this shift – drawing attention to, and connecting up, the things in a city that enable individuals and communities to flourish.

At the heart of this change is a new measure of prosperity in cities, namely the Happy City Index, which we are currently co-creating with NEF and other local and national partners. There have recently been many “beyond GDP” initiatives, introducing new measures of prosperity on national and international levels. However, nothing has been developed which fits what is required for individuals and their neighbourhoods, communities, towns, or cities across the UK and beyond. The Happy City Index aims to bridge this divide. It is an accessible, practical, meaningful and helpful tool for individual citizens, community organisations and policymakers to assess and influence wellbeing. We have gathered together an exceptional partnership of world leaders in the field of wellbeing measurement. The Index will combine pre-existing big data on the drivers of wellbeing (such as the economy, health, education) with primary data about how individuals and communities across the city are doing in terms of their sense of belonging, purpose, engagement, and other aspects of their wellbeing. The important point for this discussion is that the Happy City Index aims not merely to change WHAT we measure, but WHY and HOW. It aims to engage and enthuse individuals and policymakers in the process of understanding and improving their happiness. For individual users, the process will be educational, engaging and productive. For example, as I answer the simple survey questions online, I start to understand more about what influences my happiness. As I see my results in fun, visual and easy to understand ways, I start to see which aspects of my life could give the greatest boost to my wellbeing. In addition, when those results link up with the ‘Community Happiness Bank’ – a city-wide database of local groups, events and activities, I can discover the things within streets of my house that could enable me to improve my wellbeing. Users can revisit the website and app over time to monitor their progress, compare how they are doing with others, and find continual inspiration for ways in which they can improve their lives. We have received a great deal of interest from individuals, community organisations and policymakers, who all believe that this process can enable people to better assess and take control of how well their lives are going.

The community engagement phase of the project will consist in a variety of on- and off-line tools, activities and events. On-line, users can assess and improve their wellbeing over time in the ways discussed above. This, in addition to a city-wide representative sample survey, can enable people to take ownership of a city measure of wellbeing. Off-line, community organisations can begin to involve their users in assessing the benefits that they aim to provide. Workshops and events across the city will bring the Index to life, enabling users to fully explore the survey questions using a range of methods, from sharing stories to interacting with (Health Robinson style) wellbeing measurement machines. We believe the act of engaging communities in the measurement of their wellbeing in this way will provide them with the knowledge and capacity to build their own happiness and resilience. In addition, it puts the promotion of wellbeing on the local policy agenda, thereby providing policymakers with the power to make decisions that more directly improve people’s lives.

Are
our lives getting better? Data and statistics for measuring well-being and
progress should answer these questions and enable us to understand what drives the
well-being of people and nations and what needs to be done in order to achieve greater
progress for all.

“Give citizens the wellbeing
data they need,”says the ‘Policy and Wellbeing’ report commissioned by the Legatum Institute, as better data on well-being can
increase peoples choices and ability to make an informed choice. When young
people make a choice about their career path or a job, they know what they can
earn and what they have to do. Wouldn’t it be nice if they had data on how that
job may impact their well-being?

If citizens, governments, schools and
employers had better data on progress and well-being and used this data, then
decisions made about which services to fund, cut and develop would be
different. For example, governments would focus on the rehabilitation of prisoners and not
on long prison sentences.

Enabling and engaging citizens in well-being
data will allow society as a whole to make more informed decisions and ensure
that we measure what matters!

How can citizens get involved?

Citizen
engagement in well-being data can range from citizens being actively engaged in a) politics and policy making where they can influence the agenda and what is measured, b) the feedback loop of services they are using via
questionnaires, and c) being active user and producers of information and data
via simple mobile applications. Below are a few examples:

The
Santa Monica Wellbeing Project (video above) in California is
a city-wide initiative which engages its citizen in well-being data, throughout the life cycle of the
project by i) defining well-being as it relates to the
community, ii) creating a new tool to measure well-being in the community and
iii) working with the entire community to actively improve the conditions
needed for people to thrive.

In
2013, a 'friends and family test' was introduced by National Health
Service in the United Kingdom where patients were asked within 48 hours of using a
service if they would ‘recommend this service to friends and family’. Improvements
in services can been seen over time and citizens feel more empowered, as well. Results
are now available.

Three
of my neighbours were burgled over a few days, whilst they slept in their
homes. I found out when the third and last victim decided to post a little note
on everyone’s door. So when I
read about the United Sates www.crimemapping.com and the mobile application
which allows law enforcement agencies and citizens to provide real time data on crime, I
could see how this tool would make a real difference to my well-being.

Citizen
engagement has the potential to drive the demand, supply and use of well-being
and progress data and statistics. Governments, employers and schools can enhance
the well-being of citizens by providing them with information about the
relationship between everyday choices and subjective well-being.

Find
out more and ensure your voice is heard by participating in the discussion
(details below).

According to the latest Eurobarometer survey on the social impact of the crisis, 80% of respondents believe that poverty has increased in their country over the past 12 months. Over 30% of respondents in Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary reported that their household ran out of money to pay for ordinary bills, food and other daily consumer items at some point during the previous 12 months. These alarming numbers are reflecting the perception of European citizens. But what do indicators measuring different dimensions of poverty and inequality actually show?

The best publically available indicator to assess poverty is the ”Severe Material Deprivation Rate” (SMDR). It is an absolute measure of poverty and represents the proportion of people who cannot afford at least four out of nine basic needs, like utilities, regular hot meals or heating to keep the home adequately warm. As you can see in the interactive map below, there is a strong dispersion across Europe. While Bulgaria has the highest rate (44.1%), in Luxembourg only 1.3% of people are severely affected by a lack of resources. The average rate in EU27 countries increased from 9% percent in 2007 to 9.9% in 2012. Even though this increase does not seem to be as dramatic as the survey implies, it is worth highlighting that a share of almost 10% is unacceptable and against the objective of promoting the well-being of EU citizens.

(To view an interactive version of this map, see the original post here.)

There were opposite developments for young and old people in the EU: the SMDR stood at 11.7% for those under 18 at the end of 2012, while the rate for the elderly (over 65) reached 7.5%. The evolution of these rates since 2007 is divergent: Between 2007 and 2012, in 20 out of 28 EU countries the elderly SMDR declined on average by 4.5 percentage points (pp). At the same time, however, in 16 out of 28 countries the children SMDR has increased on average by 4.4 pp. Therefore, a generational divide is emerging: while the fall in severely materially deprived elderly people is a welcomed development, the adverse development for children is worrying. Looking at the unemployment rate, we observe an increase in all EU countries in the period 2007–2012 with the exception of Germany, while the rate remained practically unchanged in Austria, Malta, Finland and Poland. The EU28 average unemployment rate stood at 7.2 % of active population in 2007. By the third quarter of 2013, this rate had increased to 10.9%. The countries with the lowest unemployment rates are Austria, Germany and Luxembourg, as opposed to Greece, Spain, Croatia, Cyprus and Portugal, where the rate is very high. Overall we note that there was an increase in the South-North divide in terms of unemployment, which has reached unacceptably high levels in several south European countries and leads to more polarisation across Europe. Directly related to this indicator is the share of people living in jobless households, which has increased significantly throughout the crisis. The situation is especially alarming in Ireland, where every fifth child lived in 2012 in a household where no one worked. The share of such children was also higher than 15 % in Bulgaria, the UK and Hungary. Besides, the share of young people not in employment and not in any education and training (NEET) more than doubled in seven countries. The reality for young people aged between 15 and 24 years is worst in Greece, Spain and Croatia. Using the Gini coefficient as an indicator for inequality, we observe the highest levels of inequality in 2012 in Latvia, Spain, Greece and Portugal, while the lowest rates are reported in Slovenia, Czech Republic and Sweden. As Zsolt Darvas and Guntram Wolff outline in their Policy Brief published on the 1st of April 2014, inequality in most advanced economies has been rising since about 1980 and could have been a reason for the pre-crisis increase in household debt and the consequent consumption squeeze during the crisis. Therefore, developments of various social indicators show a gloomy picture. Social pain has already undermined the citizens’ trust in the EU and their own governments. This could devitalize the acceptability of painful structural reforms and fiscal consolidation measures and, in turn, diminish the reform momentum or even lead to political instability.

Friday, 11 April 2014

This blog, written by Donato Speroni, provides some highlights from the final conference of the BRAINPOoL project which prove useful for moving beyond GDP. The post is based on an article published on numerus.corriere.it and is part of the Wikiprogress Series onData and Statistics.

Being a journalist and blogger about statistics and politics, I have been following the “Beyond GDP” (B-GDP) research since the 1st OECD Forum on “Statistics, Knowledge and policy” in Palermo in 2004. We all know that the need to find new ways for measuring progress was outlined almost 50 years ago by Robert Kennedy and that the research became a global effort from 2009, after the publication of the Stiglitz Report. The economic crisis dramatized the need for new parameters, because it changed the values contributing to an acceptable well-being, while sustainability is also becoming a growing concern.

Everywhere new statistics were provided, dashboards and composite indicators were tested, but the real problem was the limited use of these experiences by decision makers, especially at national level. The whole “measuring progress initiative” was risking to run aground, to remain a stimulating intellectual exercise with no impact on the real word.

In this framework, the final conference of the BRAINPOoL project on March 24 in Paris set a turning point. BRAINPOoL means “bringing alternative indicators into policy”, and the European Commission finances the project. The Paris meeting included two panel discussions, the first hosted personalities who had governmental or political responsibilities (Enrico Giovannini, Helen Goodman, Chantal Jouanno and Mikael Jungner), the second hosted economists and civil service directors from different countries (Jan Verschooten, Gus O’Donnell, Andrew Dean, Volker Schmitt, Wanda Gaj, Stefan Kooths), under the Chair of Martin Durand, OECD chief statistician.

Here are some outputs that I found particularly interesting and stimulating:

Testimonials who held effective political and administrative power confirm that the adoption of B-GDP indicators might really change the priorities of political action. For example, labour market policy might be different if explicitly driven by the aim of maximising well-being. Today’s politicians mainly look at employment and unemployment rates. The use of alternative indicators would show greater importance for a work-life balance, quality working conditions and job security.

Inequalities impair the adoption of alternative indicators. The have-nots, who should benefit more from the B-GDP policies, cannot afford a trade-off between actual economic benefits, however limited, and future improvements of the social or environmental context. Talking about alternative indicators does not win votes.

In order to go beyond these difficulties, we need a “new narrative”. The alternative indicators should be presented in an effective and understandable way, putting the accent on the risks that we are taking if we stick to the traditional political targets. Data like GDP or unemployment are important, but place the attention on the short-term goals of political action. B-GDP indicators envision problems and collective interventions that might have an influence on the quality of life after five years or more, well beyond the electoral cycle. This contrast is evident if we take into consideration the environmental changes or the deterioration of the human and social capital of a community. A new narrative must be capable of arousing interest and engagement in the media, in public opinion and hence in political leaders, presenting the future effects of these current unsolved problems. Without this narrative, the short-term problems to be dealt with before the next elections will always prevail.

We need social and environmental data just as timely as the economic data. Almost all the social data comes out yearly, while the economic figures come out quarterly or monthly. Instead, “we want to know in real time how many people are alone at Xmas” as was said in Paris. Polls are not enough; we need reliable information, based on adequate investments in social statistics. In the UK, Margaret Thatcher decided to cut the social surveys because she did not want too many figures about poverty while she was implementing free market policies. Now (I think) we still need policies based on the free market (for instance, cuts in public spending), but we also want to know as soon as possible the social consequences in order to manage timely interventions.

In any case, the ideological quarrel about GDP should be scrapped. Tax revenues, public deficits and European policies aimed at reducing the sovereign debts all depend on the trends of the domestic product. GDP determines the dimension of public expenses and of social contributions. Therefore, it is a bad mistake (and a lost battle) to present GDP indicators and policies as a banner for “anti-market economics”.

The core of B-GDP is finding a way to enhance people’s satisfaction with their lives. It cannot be done without stronger policy interventions. This means having public powers which care about citizens’ relations, long life training and maybe people’s capacity to “extract happiness” from their condition. Do we really want this “invasive” public action? This is the real political issue, which requires common sense and “middle of the road” answers. We probably cannot accept ideologies in favour of knocking down State intervention with the wrong idea that the free market will “someday” overcome excessive inequalities in incomes, health or instruction. Most of us want public powers that protect the right to pursue happiness, but not many of us want a government telling its citizens “how to be happy” and “how to behave for their own good”. It’s a delicate political balance.

We need B-GDP models, as we have models based on GDP, but we do not know how to put the social data into these models. It would be even more difficult to include the environmental data about phenomena which cannot be priced, like biodiversity. Econometric models are not perfect and their predictions are often wrong, especially in these times of crisis, but they are employed to evaluate different alternatives in fiscal and monetary policy. National and international institutions have their own models, constantly updated. Now we would need to enlarge these systems of equations in order to obtain a “well-being forecast”, which should tell us, if new public decisions might increase or decrease collective quality of life, distances between social classes, preservation of natural or cultural resources, or even warn us of the risks of social unrest or environmental catastrophe. It’s a big challenge.

The general impression after the Paris debate was that we are already “beyond GDP”, because political decisions do not depend only on growth and other economic factors. We currently have many statistical indicators which might help in this process, much more than ten years ago, However, decision makers use them randomly, following their own convenience without any effective consensus on the choice of the data considered important in the political debate. We are in a B-GDP Europe, but we still don’t have a compass to help us find our way. This is an important topic for the next European elections and for the incoming Commission in Brussels. The BRAINPOoL process offered a lot of food for thought and needs to be continued. In a short time, another important B-GDP project will come to a conclusion: the E–Frame project by the National statistics institutes will produce a “Handbook for the use of alternative indicators”. Italy has an important role in this process, with the leadership of E-Frame by Istat (together with Statistics Netherlands) and the new national Bes indicators for equitable and sustainable well-being. I hope that the government in Rome will give adequate attention to the B-GDP issues during the Italian semester of the European presidency starting on July 1st of this year. - Donato Speroni @dospe

The New Deal is a key agreement between the 19 fragile states of the g7+ group, development partners of the International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF) and Civil Society (represented through the Civil Society Platform for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding - CSPPS). Its goal is to activate change in policy and practice in fragile and conflict-affected countries. This change is considered essential in order to strengthen trust between development partners, to put countries in the lead of their transitions and to achieve better development results. The New Deal establishes five Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals (PSGs) which help to enable progress toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and to guide national and international efforts and resources. These goals include:

The New Deal sets out new terms of engagement to support transitions from conflict and fragility to peace and stabilisation that is lead and owned by countries. It further outlines a series of commitments to achieve better results through strong partnerships and mutual trust.

But how can it be applied to the Latin American context? Does it have any relevance there?

To answers those questions, it is useful to take a quick look at the progress and challenges that Latin America is facing today. The Latin American region as a whole has shown very high economic growths rates over the last few years. Since 2011, more Latin Americans are part of the middle class than those living in poverty. Employment has increased, and average real incomes have risen by more than 25% since the new Millennium (World Bank 2013).

Nevertheless, growth and development has not reached all countries nor all citizens in the same way. Standards of living still differ widely between and within countries, presenting a challenge for the region. Poverty rates remain high, with around 80 million people still living in extreme poverty (World Bank 2013). One of the biggest challenges facing Latin America today remains tackling inequality.

Another great challenge that concerns Latin America is insecurity. According to the Economist “[…] insecurity has become perhaps the single most pressing problem facing the region”. Urban violence, high crime rates, and illicit trafficking make up part of the picture. As the Human Development Report for Latin America 2013-2014 shows, the region registers more than 100,000 homicides per year. The report also demonstrates that there is a connection between violent crime and low education. For example, in all assessed countries, more than 80% of inmates did not complete 12 years of schooling.

Another pressing concern, extremely relevant to the social contract between state and citizens, is the high perception of corruption in Latin American societies, according to the Corruption Perception Index 2013 (see below). This lack of trust in state institutions can be a driver of political unrest (as recently seen in Venezuela).

So how can the New Deal and the PSGs help middle income countries in Latin America to tackle those challenges?

As already mentioned, the New Deal provides a framework to activate change and to set development priorities.

In the development co-operation between Latin American countries and their development partners, documents defining development strategies might already exist. The New Deal can bring positive change to those working relationships and will put countries in the lead role to bring forward that change. Through the assessment of drivers and causes of fragility, countries can set priorities for addressing the most pressing concerns as well as their underlying causes and can integrate these into existing documents. The PSGs underline those priorities and help to measure their progress over time.

The five PSGs can all be relevant to tackle the challenges that remain for Latin American countries. For example, a Fragility Assessment can identify what is driving urban violence in a particular context. An outcome of this analysis might be that unemployment, access to social mobility and a lack of education within parts of the society can provoke violent behaviour. So as a result, education must be made available to all parts of the population – it must be inclusive. Service delivery in form of ensuring better quality of educational systems and strengthening economic foundations to tackle unemployment are useful activities as well. Those activities can then be marked as priorities in both national and developmental policies and then their progress can be measured through the PSGs. The same can be applied to identifying drivers of social unrest, addressing corruption, etc..

On the other hand, the New Deal can be a relevant framework for emerging donors such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela. Since many of these countries engage in fragile states (e.g. Brazil in East Timor, Haiti, and Guinea-Bissau), or countries with pockets of fragility (e.g. Mexico in El Salvador and Guatemala), the New Deal can provide a framework to work differently with these donor countries by using the PSGs to set priorities on central developmental issues and by giving Latin American donor countries the leading role in developmental planning. The principles of the New Deal can also help to strengthen trust between these emerging donors and their partners through transparency, predictability of aid and mutual accountability.

This week, the International Youth Foundation (IYF) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) launched their "Global Youth Wellbeing Index", with support from Hilton Worldwide. This Index was designed to promote attention to youth issues, to encourage dialogue about the issues, and to invest in young people, given that they are the catalysts for development, prosperity and security. The Index is intended for youth themselves, policymakers, donors and investors, and implementers.

The report on the 2014 results explains some of the situational landscapes in which youth today are living, both negative (i.a. unemployment; poverty; gender inequality) and positive (i.a. education returns; HIV declines; technological know-how). In order to create a clearer picture of what is happening with nearly 70% of the youth (aged 10-24) around the world, the Index uses 40 indicators and provides results for 30 countries.

A large majority of the world’s youth are experiencing lower levels of well-being (15% experience high or upper-middle well-being, 85% experience lower-middle or low well-being.)

Even where young people are doing relatively well, they still face specific challenges and limitations

Even where youth may not be thriving, they display success in certain areas

How young people feel about their own wellbeing does not always align with what the objective data suggests

Across countries, domain average scores indicate youth faring strongest in health and weakest in economic opportunity

Overall, youth well-being trends correlate more strongly with countries’ income levels than with their regions. Young people in wealthier countries tend to have higher overall well-being (see below).

Global Youth Wellbeing Index Rankings by World Bank Income Classification

The report provides recommendations and next steps:

Advance youth voices and participation

Promote deeper-dive and targeted research and analysis

Consider integrated policies and programs

Advance the body of age-disaggregated and youth survey data

There are limitations to the Index, such as incomplete, inconsistent and uncoordinated data. The picture of youth also too broad, as the data is not disaggregated by gender, region, rural/urban, disability, religion, socio-economic status, etc.. However, the authors believe that by identifying the relevant data gaps, the Index can also assist the post-2015 development agenda.

The first steps can be difficult, but luckily those involved are aware of the challenges ahead and are willing to take this Index deeper and farther in the coming years. I look forward to seeing what the Global Youth Wellbeing Index will teach us in the coming years.